Discharge for 159mph PC

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Horridlittleman, Aug 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC link

    At least he's been found guilty. Hopefully his police force will follow up with disciplinary procedures.

    His statement of - "I was advised to familiarise myself with vehicles, so when there was a need to respond at speed you were aware of its performance." - doesn't hold water. If it was a police policy then surely it would be written down.
     
  2. -Speeding at 159mph
    -Shooting innocent people on trains.
    -Kicking in peoples doors and arresting people who are 'suspicious'
    -Dressing like a stormtrooper
    -Never having to do any physical exercise

    Being in the police in real life is better than being in the police on a tv show. Do you still get a 'shootah' and a Ford Granada?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Somebody could have easily swerved out in front of him, either mistakenly or to avoid someone else. At that speed, it doesn't matter how advanced you are - the chances are you may not respond in time. It's totally reckless behaviour from someone who should be protecting the public, not endangering them - and should have been reflected in a ban and a lengthy prison sentence.
     
  4. Pat Sullivan, prosecuting, admitted there had been some dispute over the speeds the camera had recorded but said it was accepted they were "broadly" accurate.

    Broadly accurate!!! You cannot prosecute a speeding motorist with a broadly accurate speed camera. So the camera in the car was not calibrated corectly ehh?????
     
  5. The good news about this, is that although its p~ssed off a lot of motorists, the anti-motorist speed camera nazis are even more p~ssed off. Hoorah!
     
  6. This smacks of one rule for them, one rule for us. As someone who was in a car that got flashed at 44mph in a 40 zone (motorway roadworks at 11am on a Sunday morning, with only 1 HGV in the distance), this is galling and shows the dichotomy that has developed between the police behaviour and and their treatment of the public. Do as I say, not do as I do. Fcuk 'em!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. He was grassed up by civilian fitter that worked in the garage, after the camera on the car was switched on by accident after he went over a speed ramp exiting the police station.

    If he is not allowed to test the car to it's limits how is he supposed to know how it will handle when the sh1t hits the fan, not like he was testing it at rush hour.

    Sparky awaits incoming.

    Sparky
     
  8. Thats why we have test tracks and proving grounds.
     
  9. I imagine that as much as they try they couldn't simulate the same conditions as he would have come across driving around Telford.
    Personally i don't have a problem with what he did, nice to know that he could handle his car under such conditions, as said on another thread chav's drive at these speeds and get away with it and they haven't got the skill thet this police officer has.

    Sparky
     
  10. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    If memory serves, he was clocked at 2am, a time he was unlikely to encounter a "lot" of traffic. As an advanced driver, it is possible he may have to drive at high speeds, so therefore he has to practice from time to time. I would admit that 156mph is bloody quick, but still he may have to some day in the future. Fast driving isnt just something you do once and not need to practice again. After all, you pass your APWT during basic training but still have to shoot on a regular basis...
     
  11. 159Mph on the M54 and 131Mph on the A5 and dual carrigeway A442, at 3 O'clock in the morning with good road conditions, i remember from the original trial, the court had the video tape assessed by expert traffic officers who decided at no point had he endangered the public by his driving.

    Just typical thet he has been tried by media and has had to suffer for 2 1/2 years and had to wait to see if he was going to lose his job.

    Sparky
     
  12. So it was in the dark as well! 159 thats close on 2 and 3/4 miles a minute, how far ahead do your headlights go? 1 mile? could he stop in 20 seconds from 159, I doubt it. Maybe we should encourage Police officers to rush around shooting people as ranges are not like the real thing, oh wait, they already do that.
     
  13. If he needed to test the car then follow SOPs and make a request and get authorisation from a senior officer.
    That way he's covered.

    I can think of no circumstances when an officer would need to travel at 159mph.
    Hot pursuit?
    No. Home Office policy is follow and observe.
    Keeping up or in sight isn't that difficult.

    I was given permission to travel at up to 130mph and, with blues in broad daylight on a dual carriageway, that was enough to follow and observe.

    Attending an incident?
    No. 130 mph is enough. IMHO

    This guy broke the law.
    He was found guilty.
    He got an ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE?? WTF?

    The 2 don't go together!
    He should have been given a conditional discharge at the very least.
     
  14. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    And the 'Powers that be' wonder why the polis are not held in the same esteem as previously.

    I don't want to get into the Monty Python/Private Polismans' Ball scetch, but it appears that if a boy/girl in blue tries to keep the streets clean of chavs they will be hunted down by the 'do gooders' of society. Hence fewer plods on the beat.

    Yet if a plod decides to:

    a. take a new, untested, car onto the highroads
    b. and go at a speed well in excess of the legal limit,
    c. without having a presence from his colleagues (those in white hats who love pulling drivers over)
    d. who can clear the area he is driving in, thus making it safer ............

    he gets off with it. :cry:
     
  15. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Not into the latin stuff - but in essence 'who guards the guards'? In this instance all supporting evidence seem to come from the people who have most experience in fast driving - the police :cry: (ambulance drivers, firemen ?)

    I would like to know why the police officers I know think that this is a very dodgy case and that the guy, going on what is being reported, would have been emptied from his job in normald circumstances.